Swallowed Whole - A Very Bad Thing?


Rules Questions

Sczarni

Scanning the forums I see many different interpretations as to what can be done when someone is swallowed whole. It should clearly be significantly more than a pin, which is a fairly extreme condition:

Pinned

A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.

Casting Spells while Pinned: The only spells which can be cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.

The key sentence to swallowed whole is this: "A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is equal to 1/10 the creature’s total hit points), or it can just try to escape the grapple."

I interpret this as exclusive - especially with the phrase "it can just try to escape" meaning that these are the only two options available in a gullet.

From a realism standpoint, the idea of people going into backpacks, drawing weapons, casting spells, using wands, drinking potions while being balled up and constricted in the stomach of a creature - possibly only one size category larger - seems ludicrous to me.

I see a lot on the forums including very liberal rulings and hope that a dev can make the call on this. I figure either I am right or it is up to very, very broad discretion - and my players don't seem to agree with me.

Thanks,

Crellan

Sovereign Court

swallow whole wrote:
Swallow Whole (Ex) If a creature with this special attack begins its turn with an opponent grappled in its mouth (see Grab), it can attempt a new combat maneuver check (as though attempting to pin the opponent). If it succeeds, it swallows its prey, and the opponent takes bite damage. Unless otherwise noted, the opponent can be up to one size category smaller than the swallowing creature. Being swallowed causes a creature to take damage each round. The amount and type of damage varies and is given in the creature's statistics. A swallowed creature keeps the grappled condition, while the creature that did the swallowing does not. A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is equal to 1/10 the creature's total hit points), or it can just try to escape the grapple. The Armor Class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is normally 10 + 1/2 its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size or Dexterity. If a swallowed creature cuts its way out, the swallowing creature cannot use swallow whole again until the damage is healed. If the swallowed creature escapes the grapple, success puts it back in the attacker's mouth, where it may be bitten or swallowed again.
It's in the description. The creature being swallowed keeps the grappled condition. So therefore they have all the limitations of being grappled.
if you are grappled wrote:
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

So as long as you can draw your potion or your weapon with one hand you are allowed to. Old rules (3rd edition) made you make a grapple check to do so, but there's nothing saying you need to make one in pathfinder. I believe the developers were trying to mitigate the old grapple rules which made grappling too powerful. Being grabbed by a colossal assassin vine ment game over, you can't do anything; auto lose situations are no fun. At least now you can pull out your knife and poke at it.

The thing to consider is that this is a universal rule. The creature could be only only one size category larger than you, or it could be five. It may make sense if you were swallowed by a python to have the pinned condition, but not if you were swallowed by a giant whale. In a home game, feel free to house rule per the given circumstances, but the rules clearly state that being swallowed gives the grappled condition.

Fun pathfinder fact: it's often safer to sit in the belly of a giant beast then to stand in front of it. You take less damage from being swallowed then you do from being full attacked.

Sczarni

By that standard a creature would never swallow whole because it is worse than just grappling more or attacking. Seems silly. And just because you have the grappled condition doesn't mean that you have the further restrictions as well, that your only options are to grapple out or cut your way out. That is as logical of an interpretation as yours plus much more realistic.

Fun pathfinder fact: it's often safer to sit in the belly of a giant beast then to stand in front of it. You take less damage from being swallowed then you do from being full attacked.

The fact that your interpretation makes that true makes me think that you gotta be wrong. Grapple twice and spend two rounds being worse off? Absurd.


Crellan wrote:
I interpret this as exclusive - especially with the phrase "it can just try to escape" meaning that these are the only two options available in a gullet.

I think you're misinterpreting this sentence. They mean "it can simply try to escape" (rather than doing damage as well).


It make some sense that being swallowed is less bad than being full
attacked. Stomach acid takes time to do damage and the squeezing of muscular action isn't really that bad. I mean, it's gonna stink and it's hard to move and all your wounds burn because there's no skin protecting you there and I'd enforce the "hold your breath" rules and your eyes are going to sting for hours after you're out...

Compare that to being clawed and bitten and punched and shredded...

It's not that unrealistic.

And it's not a bad decision for a monster to make, either. Takes one PC out of the fight long enough to rip the others to shreds. Then when the one you had stored in your stomach gets out (whichever way they do it) you can rip them apart as well.


Thebethia wrote:
swallow whole wrote:
Swallow Whole (Ex) If a creature with this special attack begins its turn with an opponent grappled in its mouth (see Grab), it can attempt a new combat maneuver check (as though attempting to pin the opponent). If it succeeds, it swallows its prey, and the opponent takes bite damage. Unless otherwise noted, the opponent can be up to one size category smaller than the swallowing creature. Being swallowed causes a creature to take damage each round. The amount and type of damage varies and is given in the creature's statistics. A swallowed creature keeps the grappled condition, while the creature that did the swallowing does not. A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is equal to 1/10 the creature's total hit points), or it can just try to escape the grapple. The Armor Class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is normally 10 + 1/2 its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size or Dexterity. If a swallowed creature cuts its way out, the swallowing creature cannot use swallow whole again until the damage is healed. If the swallowed creature escapes the grapple, success puts it back in the attacker's mouth, where it may be bitten or swallowed again.
It's in the description. The creature being swallowed keeps the grappled condition. So therefore they have all the limitations of being grappled.

But it appears that we've an interesting contradiction here, then. It does say that creatures swallowed whole keep the grappled condition, but just a moment later (which I've italicized and bolded) it states clearly that only a light weapon can be used to escape. This contradicts grapple rules, where any one-handed weapon can still be used to fight with. This kind of makes for an interesting conundrum, I guess.


Ruleswise I don't see a contradiction. You can do anything allowed when grappled, such as making an attack with a light or onehanded weapon. You can not for example make an attack with a two-handed weapons and you suffer concentration checks for spellcasting (and cannot cast spells with somatic components).

To get out, you must use a light slashing or piercing weapon.

So you can attack the creature with your heavy mace (but not your greataxe), but you won't get out. To get out you need to use your knife.

EDIT: A weird counterintuitive effect though is that casting grease on yourself will make it easier to escape the stomach. One would think it'd do the reverse.


Crellan wrote:

By that standard a creature would never swallow whole because it is worse than just grappling more or attacking. Seems silly. And just because you have the grappled condition doesn't mean that you have the further restrictions as well, that your only options are to grapple out or cut your way out. That is as logical of an interpretation as yours plus much more realistic.

Fun pathfinder fact: it's often safer to sit in the belly of a giant beast then to stand in front of it. You take less damage from being swallowed then you do from being full attacked.

The fact that your interpretation makes that true makes me think that you gotta be wrong. Grapple twice and spend two rounds being worse off? Absurd.

you seem to think that a rule making an absurd situation cannot be a correct interpretation. i assure you that is not the case in this game. there are many absurd rules.


Thebethia wrote:
Fun pathfinder fact: it's often safer to sit in the belly of a giant beast then to stand in front of it. You take less damage from being swallowed then you do from being full attacked.

Despite this being less damage, it might still be a good idea. grapple that 2 handed fighter and he might not have a weapon to cut his way out. Grab that wizard and he might not be able to do much damage at all despite having a dagger. Taking out a character or 2 could be game changing, even if only for a round or 2. Look at what hold person can do. Besides its very thematic for a large creature to swallow a few morsels and then go to sleep.


The fact that you can swallow someone and after that attack someone else while the one swallowed still takes damage and is severely handycapped in what he can do makes it worthwhile. If a monster only has one opponent it might be better to kill him before swallowing him.

Sczarni

asthyril wrote:


you seem to think that a rule making an absurd situation cannot be a correct interpretation. i assure you that is not the case in this game. there are many absurd rules.

No, but if a rule can be interpreted in a way that is not absurd, that is the way to interpret it. The plain language is clear that it is meant to be more restrictive than just being grappled, and the I think that sentence involving the grappled condition is there more to state that the monster is not grappled anymore. Grammatically my interpretation is correct and less absurd... I mean it should be at least as bad as being pinned, which is a pretty severe condition.


But there isnt another interpretation. The RAW is clear and theres nothing to suggest it isnt RAI. Its still a powerful option especially against casters. A swallowedcaster cannot cast spells woth somatic components, and have to do at least one conc check to cast anything else. (whats the rule on conc checks and continuous damage? Have a faint memory it forces conc checks but that might only be our house rule). And no LoS/LoE betond the belly. (and by raw though clearly not RAI i think a monster with slam or similar would get an AoO lol!)

Sczarni

So the swallowing creature should be able to pin you within it's stomach then?


Being swallowed whole is a lot less restricting than being pinned but the swallower can inflict damage every round to the victim while still being able to use all their actions to fight other opponents. That seems reasonable. I don't know of any cases in real life of people being swallowed while still conscious but drawing a dagger or wand and killing the monster from the inside seems suitably heroic for a RPG.

Sovereign Court

It's something designed to show a creature gobbling someone up in quick bite. Most of those things aren't bright enough to realize that an adventurer is quite a bit more dangerous to swallow up then say a cow.

Suggestion: Don't make every creature in the world think only in terms of game mechanics or your games will get quite silly.


Crellan wrote:
So the swallowing creature should be able to pin you within it's stomach then?

Well... First off, now I'm just discussing by strict RAW rather than what makes sense. Basically, the answer is "only if it first grapples the character in the stomach". Lets' take an example of T-rex vs Kim.

The tyrannosaurus isn't grappling Kim anymore after being swallowed. Kim has the grappled condition but the T-rex isn't considered grappling. You can only pin creatures you grapple. So the T-rex would have to try to grapple (CMB vs CMD) with all the regular penalties and bonuses (though Kim of course has some extra penalties due to already having the grappled condition). If the T-rex succeeds, they are now grappling, and both have the grappled condition (and since it doesn't stack, the T-rex will that round only have penalties compared to not doing it).

When it's Kim's turn, she can try to break the grapple (which means T-rex isn't grappling anymore, but she'd still have the grappled condition from being in the stomach) or she could try to reverse the grapple becoming the grappler (but still having the condition) or she could do any other thing allowed while grappling.

If she doesn't reverse the grapple, the T-rex can then try to pin her if it manages to maintain the grapple. If she reverses the grapple, she can pin the T-rex (if able to maintain grapple).

So basically, while you could use the rules in some way for this, it'd be very complicated and utterly silly.

I think the Swallow Whole rules are fine, but unless you're playing PFS you're free to house rule. It's more honest to house rule things than try to game the system; not saying you are, just saying it's better.


Ilja wrote:

Ruleswise I don't see a contradiction. You can do anything allowed when grappled, such as making an attack with a light or one-handed weapon.

To get out, you must use a light slashing or piercing weapon.

So you can attack the creature with your heavy mace (but not your greataxe), but you won't get out. To get out you need to use your knife.

EDIT: A weird counterintuitive effect though is that casting grease on yourself will make it easier to escape the stomach. One would think it'd do the reverse.

But, via the rule, you can't get out wielding a longsword, scimitar, or battleaxe--all of which are one-handed slashing weapons, but a dagger, shortsword, or handaxe can effectively cut you out? That seems somewhat contradictory to me, I'm afraid. If being in something's gullet is restrictive enough that you need a light weapon to cut yourself out with, it only makes sense to me that you wouldn't be able to use anything larger, else you should be able to cut yourself out with something larger. However, the rule specifically speaks against that.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People are throwing the term RAW around... RAW means rules as written, meaning you look at the words as written. The words as written can be taken my way as well as yours.

Also in rules interpretation the specific trumps the general. In this case the general is that you have the grappled condition, the specific is that you are swalled whole. When you are swallowed you you have, in addition to the grappled condition, this restriction:

"A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is equal to 1/10 the creature’s total hit points), or it can just try to escape the grapple."

Definition of Just

The only meaning of the word "just" that could apply in this sentence is "only or merely."

This means as applied RAW: you can try to cut your way free or else the ONLY other thing you can do is try to escape the grapple.

Looking at the rules as written, you can only do two things while swallowed whole. This not only fits RAW but also makes way more sense than being able to do anything you can do while grappled.


Crellan wrote:
"A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is equal to 1/10 the creature’s total hit points), or it can just try to escape the grapple."

If you read the swallow whole section more closely, you'll realize that the section you quoted pertains to escaping the swallowed whole condition. It's special conditions on getting out of the stomach of the creature. It even says if you escape via cutting out, the creature cant use the ability again unless it heals, if you escape the other way you are grappled in it's mouth again.

The quoted section applies to the escape conditions. Everything else follows the grappled rules because when you are swallowed whole, you are considered grappled.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Dr Grecko wrote:
if you escape the other way you are grappled in it's mouth again.

Or if you escape the other OTHER way, you're still Grappled, but arguably in a less desirable location ;)


Sub-Creator wrote:
But, via the rule, you can't get out wielding a longsword, scimitar, or battleaxe--all of which are one-handed slashing weapons, but a dagger, shortsword, or handaxe can effectively cut you out? That seems somewhat contradictory to me, I'm afraid.

It's a stretch of imagination, sure. But can't it be that while you can bring a sword or axe to bear well enough to slice someone, you can't make sure to cut in the right place? With a small knife it's easier to cut downwards regardless of how you yourself is placed, with a sword you're more or less bound to slice in front of you (if the sword is in front of you).

I agree that it's a little weird flavorwise, but not gamebreakingly so. And the rules are clear in that regard.


Crellan wrote:

"A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is equal to 1/10 the creature’s total hit points), or it can just try to escape the grapple."

Definition of Just

The only meaning of the word "just" that could apply in this sentence is "only or merely."

This means as applied RAW: you can try to cut your way free or else the ONLY other thing you can do is try to escape the grapple.

No, even with that interpretation it doesn't say "the only other thing you can do". If you mean "only" with it, the sentence is "A swallowed creature can try to cut it's way free *snip*, or it can only try to escape the grapple."

And that's just weird grammar. Apart from that it's not RAW it's also a very weird interpretation in that there's no reason at all to write "the creature keeps the grappled condition" as the grappled condition does exactly nothing if the only things you can do are trying to escape.

I feel very confident in saying that the rule is that you're treated as grappled, and that the section above describes how to escape that grapple. I feel very certain in saying that this is a clear case of RAW, and feel fairly confident in saying that it's probably also exactly how it was intended to work.

I do think that by RAW, someone who has been eaten can be attacked by the eater, but that on the other hand I think is directly against the intent of the rules.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are swallowed, you are restricted in your actions (as per the grapple condition). You also have the option of cutting yourself free (which you don't have for a normal, non-swallow, grapple situation).

The bit about "just try to escape from the grapple" is a reiteration of the normal option for being grappled; it's not limiting your options to just cut-or-escape.


What options if you just decide to stay in the creature and murderize it from the inside?

-j

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

See the grapple rules.

Sczarni

Thanks for the answer!


So I grapple the heck out of it's uvula.

I so have the urge now to have my PFS grapple master character leap down a monster's throat and throttle it's liver.

-j

Scarab Sages

Gobo Horde wrote:
Thebethia wrote:
Fun pathfinder fact: it's often safer to sit in the belly of a giant beast then to stand in front of it. You take less damage from being swallowed then you do from being full attacked.
Despite this being less damage, it might still be a good idea. grapple that 2 handed fighter and he might not have a weapon to cut his way out. Grab that wizard and he might not be able to do much damage at all despite having a dagger. Taking out a character or 2 could be game changing, even if only for a round or 2. Look at what hold person can do. Besides its very thematic for a large creature to swallow a few morsels and then go to sleep.

I got to watch our Paladin smite his way out of a critter once. That was quite impressive... :D


If you aren't swallowed by a creature that requires it's own internal map? Well that's just a slap in the face right there :-)


Matthew Downie wrote:

Being swallowed whole is a lot less restricting than being pinned but the swallower can inflict damage every round to the victim while still being able to use all their actions to fight other opponents. That seems reasonable. I don't know of any cases in real life of people being swallowed while still conscious but drawing a dagger or wand and killing the monster from the inside seems suitably heroic for a RPG.

I believe I read a legend about someone doing that with one of the giant snakes. Faking being dead and then cutting it open.

Probably not legit of course, for a number of reasons, but it makes a good story.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Swallowed Whole - A Very Bad Thing? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.